A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Geotechnical Considerations in Buried Pipeline Design Crossing Transport Corridors
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4883-9193
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5211-0065
The Australian standard (AS2566) for buried pipes provides a design methodology and recommends ground parameters for design. The values referred to as soil modulus equate an embedment modulus (which is a soil–pipe modulus reaction) and a native soil modulus. For low-height fills and small-diameter pipes, the equated native soil modulus value used does not significantly affect a calculated deflection. As live load, depth or pipe diameter increases, these inconsistencies become apparent. Where pipeline crossings at road or rail corridors occur, the limitations of AS2566 become apparent. When finite element method (FEM) is used to examine soil–pipe interactions, input soil parameter values different from those provided in AS2566 must then be used. Case studies of a finite element analysis for a large-diameter buried pipe subject to traffic loading are compared with the AS2566 design procedure. The limitations of equations used in calculating the pipe deflection are shown.
Geotechnical Considerations in Buried Pipeline Design Crossing Transport Corridors
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4883-9193
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5211-0065
The Australian standard (AS2566) for buried pipes provides a design methodology and recommends ground parameters for design. The values referred to as soil modulus equate an embedment modulus (which is a soil–pipe modulus reaction) and a native soil modulus. For low-height fills and small-diameter pipes, the equated native soil modulus value used does not significantly affect a calculated deflection. As live load, depth or pipe diameter increases, these inconsistencies become apparent. Where pipeline crossings at road or rail corridors occur, the limitations of AS2566 become apparent. When finite element method (FEM) is used to examine soil–pipe interactions, input soil parameter values different from those provided in AS2566 must then be used. Case studies of a finite element analysis for a large-diameter buried pipe subject to traffic loading are compared with the AS2566 design procedure. The limitations of equations used in calculating the pipe deflection are shown.
Geotechnical Considerations in Buried Pipeline Design Crossing Transport Corridors
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4883-9193
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5211-0065
The Australian standard (AS2566) for buried pipes provides a design methodology and recommends ground parameters for design. The values referred to as soil modulus equate an embedment modulus (which is a soil–pipe modulus reaction) and a native soil modulus. For low-height fills and small-diameter pipes, the equated native soil modulus value used does not significantly affect a calculated deflection. As live load, depth or pipe diameter increases, these inconsistencies become apparent. Where pipeline crossings at road or rail corridors occur, the limitations of AS2566 become apparent. When finite element method (FEM) is used to examine soil–pipe interactions, input soil parameter values different from those provided in AS2566 must then be used. Case studies of a finite element analysis for a large-diameter buried pipe subject to traffic loading are compared with the AS2566 design procedure. The limitations of equations used in calculating the pipe deflection are shown.
Geotechnical Considerations in Buried Pipeline Design Crossing Transport Corridors
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering
Rujikiatkamjorn, Cholachat (editor) / Xue, Jianfeng (editor) / Indraratna, Buddhima (editor) / Look, Burt (author) / Mirjalili, Roozbeh (author)
International Conference on Transportation Geotechnics ; 2024 ; Sydney, NSW, Australia
2024-10-23
9 pages
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
Geotechnical Foundation Design Considerations for the Northumberland Strait Crossing
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1993
Buried Seafloor Pipeline Crossing a Fault
| IEEE | 2020
Seismic responses of buried pipeline crossing fault
| British Library Online Contents | 2007
Culvert crossing buried pipeline construction and pipeline laying method using the same
| European Patent Office | 2016